- From: Volker Sorge <volker.sorge@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2018 20:51:20 +0100
- To: Neil Soiffer <soiffer@alum.mit.edu>
- Cc: Peter Krautzberger <peter@krautzource.com>, mathonweb <public-mathonwebpages@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAE5-06T82xiZzgk-CGjSj9FrhqzeQPv0x+7_CDxEDC8XUi-pXQ@mail.gmail.com>
I am confused; I don't understand your point. I was explicitly referring to classical logic. Of course you can define a precedence order. Programming languages often do following Boolean algebra habits, so do often authors of logic text books. But even then the order between and/or can depend on the author. On Mon, 10 Sep 2018 at 19:10, Neil Soiffer <soiffer@alum.mit.edu> wrote: > I disagree about there not being an accepted precedence for *and* vs *or*. > The precedence in programming languages that I know all have *and *with a > higher precedence than *or*. In MathML, the default operator table does > so also. The other notation used for logical and/or is ·/+ (as in a ·b + c > or ab+c) and these again use the convention that the "times" operator has a > higher precedence than "plus" for and/or. > > It may be that some books/articles do it the other way around, but I'd > like to see some examples proving me wrong. Or if they are considered equal > precedence, again, I'd like to see some examples where this is true (as > opposed to just using parens to make it clearer). > > Neil > > > On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 10:55 AM, Volker Sorge <volker.sorge@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> There is no precedence order for logical and/or ∧/∨. >> Precedence in classical logic is: negation over conjunction/disjunction >> over (material) implication over equivalence. >> You always need to disambiguate order of and/or. >> Volker >> >> On Mon, 10 Sep 2018 at 18:33, Neil Soiffer <soiffer@alum.mit.edu> wrote: >> >>> Apologies for missing the meeting today -- I don't seem to have the >>> meetings properly entered into my calendar and due to the time difference, >>> I don't see Peter's reminders until after I start work. >>> >>> I have a question about what someone wrote on the Wiki: >>> >>>> a∧b∨c it is not clear the order precedence. Usually ∧ has >>>> precedence over ∨, but not always. >>>> >>> >>> Can someone clarify (on the wiki) *when* it the normal precedence >>> doesn't hold. What surprised me when I first looked into notations and >>> precedence (20 years ago -- yikes!) was that although a symbols might have >>> many different meanings, the precedence relationships it has didn't seem to >>> change. I attributed that to people trying to avoid confusion when using >>> familiar notation for new functionality. Having '∨' have a different >>> precedence relative to '∧' in some cases seems very strange to me. But >>> mathematicians do strange things at times (especially logicians ;-). >>> >>> Neil >>> >>> >>> >>> <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> Virus-free. >>> www.avg.com >>> <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> >>> <#m_1929109758283245939_m_-8668002184244581737_m_5378311284654993367_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> >>> >>> On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 12:36 AM, Peter Krautzberger < >>> peter@krautzource.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi everyone, >>>> >>>> Just a quick reminder for the CG meetings this week. >>>> >>>> - a11y TF, Monday, Sept 10, 11am Eastern >>>> - css TF, Monday, Sept 10, 12pm Eastern >>>> - no CG meeting this week >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> Peter. >>>> >>> >>> >
Received on Monday, 10 September 2018 19:51:56 UTC